lawandcrime
White House Press Secretary Sarah HuckabeeSanders elicited a rapid response from reporters on Wednesday when she said that President Donald Trump‘s rally description of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford‘s allegation against Brett Kavanaugh wasTrump “stating the facts.”
I listened to the whole awful youtube. Joseph Orlow gave the right answer. The speaker is pure Yehoshua on this blog. Yehoshua, is that you? This is how I imagine Yehoshua in his trolling here. Interesting, the speaker’s conclusion. He asks at the end---is it possible that we have women eager to lie? Susan lied throughout, 1991-2018, in her court papers against me. Courts of can determine who’s lying, maybe.
ReplyDeleteKing Solomon says: “The first to plead his case seems right Till the other party examines him” (Proverbs 18:17).
The fake/phony PhD psychology letter behind the K-G heter---is not a criminal case. What’s the likelihood of it being true? Surely, all will agree, extremely unlikely. How dare Rabbi Kamenetsky support Tamar is free ! It’s a Biblical abomination for a married woman to live with another man etc.--- “You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws” (Leviticus 18:3).
The accusation against Judge (now Justice) Kavenaugh was complicated.
ReplyDeleteDid the alleged event take place?
Assuming it did, Dr. Ford's lone testimony was not convincing.
But, if it did not take place, that does not automatically make Dr. Ford a liar. To me, a person making untrue statements doesn't make them a liar. It means they made a mistake.
That might be a mistake of identity. Or in this case, possibly a mistake of thinking something imagined is real.
And then there is the possibility Dr. Ford intentionally lied.
And then the possibilities get really complicated. Maybe Dr. Ford, who admits she drank a beer at the party, indicated she wanted attention from the then teenage Judge Kavenaugh. Then she changes her mind at some point and starts yelling, and ends up with a hand on her mouth.
Or maybe she wanted attention, was rejected, and she resents that.
Nobody else can be found who admits to being there. So the whole thing is unknowable by legal standards. Which is my point: the whole exercise was a waste of time.
The media and Dems used it to create a talking point. The Left was desperate for a talking point to rally around. Now they have one for years to come.
For the record, I don't know Dr. Ford and nothing I say about her is anything but tentative. I'm on surer ground attacking the Leftists and Dems who exhibited a known pattern of behavior.
Gerald makes a point that really requires more attention. Some women do intentionally lie sometimes. At the very least, it must be conceded that women are capable of lying.
Dr. Ford, despite my never having met her, I believe is capable of lying. So these women claining the believe her are a curious phenomenom. They believe - fine. But what is this? Some kind of feminist reliigion?
Yes, I've been working on my American accent. Also on getting the Americans to adopt GMT. (NOT GET)
ReplyDeleteHow about the daily accusations against me and yehoshua?
ReplyDeleteFirst I was rabbi ralbag, then a goy, now the speaker in this video. Oh, it's still 2.36 pm in London, and not shabbat yet.
Paraphrase 'Dr Ford untrue statements do not her a liar, it just means she made a mistake.'
ReplyDeleteMaybe untrue, but affects a third party tremendously.
2. As I said before: she probably didn't mind such a show of affection. She only minded it thirty years later retroactively, her being physically involved with who turned out to be a conservative (assuming BK is a conservative, not necessarily so; he's a Bush type)
Shabbat Shalom, won't be approved till after shabbat.
11The L spoke to Moses, saying: 12Speak
ReplyDeleteto the Israelite people and say to them:
If any man’s wife has gone astray and broken
faith with him 13in that a man has had carnal
relations with her unbeknown to her husband,
and she keeps secret the fact that she has defiled
herself without being forced, and there is no witness
against her—14but a fit of jealousy comes
over him and he is wrought up about the wife
who has defiled herself; or if a fit of jealousy
comes over one and he is wrought up about his
wife although she has not defiled herself—15the
man shall bring his wife to the priest. And he
shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of
an ephah of barley flour. No oil shall be poured
upon it and no frankincense shall be laid on it,
for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal
offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing.
I don't understand something Joe. I was responding to a comment you made where you said Ford's testimony was credible. Now you say it wasn't convincing. Was it credible but not convincing? For the reasons I stated in my comment that Rabbi Eidensohn chose to highlight above, I don't think her testimony was particularly credible and definitely didn't find it convincing. If it was so credible as you said, why do you not believe her? You really thought she was credible?
ReplyDeleteTorah thought on this week’s parsha לך לך
ReplyDelete“Abram went forth as the Lord had commanded him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran. Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother’s son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and the persons that they had acquired in Haran; and they set out for the land of Canaan. When they arrived in the land of Canaan, Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. The Canaanites were then in the land” (Genesis 12:4-6).
What of Abram’s father, Terah?
“When Terah had lived 70 years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now this is the line of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. Haran died in the lifetime of his father Terah, in his native land, Ur of the Chaldeans Abram and Nahor took to themselves wives, the name of Abram’s wife being Sarai and that of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah. Now Sarai was barren, she had no child. Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan; but when they had come as far as Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah came to 205 years; and Terah died in Haran. ” (Genesis 11:26-32).
In the Midrash Terah had to flee for his life from Ur of the Chaldeans. It would be a baseless uncorroborated false accusation to say that Abram abandoned his old father in Haran when Abram moved with his wife and nephew to Israel. On the surface it looks like Abram abandoned his father Terah. A troll could smear Abram etc.
רש"י בראשית י"א ל"ב
ולמה הקדים הכתוב מיתתו של תרח ליציאתו של אברם, שלא יהא הדבר מפורסם לכל ויאמרו לא קיים אברם את כבוד אביו שהניחו זקן והלך לו, לפיכך קראו הכתוב מת,
Did Tamar and her supporters make a baseless uncorroborated accusation against her husband Aaron---with the fake/phony PhD psychology letter that Rabbi Kamenetsky and ORA use to support Tamar is free? May I show here my letter today to the NYS Ct of Appeals:
ReplyDelete1.I request permission to submit these papers concerning my motion 2018--840 8/20/2018. I'm attaching an affidavit of service proving I mailed by UPS a true copy to Susan and to Kings County Supreme Court, Matrimonial Division.
2.I take umbrage on Susan's false charge that I abandoned her. Susan never marshalled evidence in all her years for her claim that I abandoned her. I continue to deny adamantly that I abandoned Susan. Rather it was Susan that sought a get from me, and I reluctantly gave it to her. Susan ambushed me. How? Susan refused my offer, for child support, of half of the $750 monthly I was getting from TIAA. Susan arranged with the crooked Judge Rigler to freeze my pension 100%. The Appellate Division, erroneously ruled: “As such, the Supreme Court was correct in not extending comity as to the child support issues and, accordingly, in denying the husband's motion to amend his answer.” Are we to believe that the crooked Judge Rigler wrote a March 7, 1995 Order of Separation during the long period of the 100% frozen TIAA pension (early 1994 - January 1998)? Susan first brought mention of this lie to get her phony/fake 2013 NYS civil divorce.
3.We see that Judge Brett Kavanaugh took umbrage on the false charge that he ganged raped etc Dr. Ford some 36+ years ago. Out of fairness, uncorroborated accusations, however emotionally told and however pleasing to the Democrats, must be ignored. Out of fairness, the NYS courts should ignore Susan's uncorroborated false accusation that I abandoned her in 1991. Susan made this false charge and repeated it endlessly 1991-2018 in court papers. The NYS courts awarded Susan my pension and my house. How? On what basis?
4.Yes, on the surface, I moved to Israel July 1991 without Susan and without our 6 children, young and wealthy --- an internet troll could say I abandoned Susan. Susan never proved her abandonment charge. My expressed condition when I married Susan was that she would join me in Israel. I quote Kethuboth 110b: “Mishnah. [A man] may compel all [his household] to go up (lit., cause to go up) [with him] to the land of Israel.”
How about this possibility: The frat boy who frequently drank to excess did so on that occasion, and has no memory of his attempted assault because it made no impression on him in his inebriated state. And the person who Ford says was in the room himself wrote about getting excessively drunk so he doesn't remember either. But for the woman who was the subject of the assault, it was not a brief encounter that didn't register/was quickly forgotten, rather a terrifying moment that came up in couples therapy decades later.
ReplyDeleteYehoshua says “… But for the woman who was the subject of the assault, it was not a brief encounter that didn't register/was quickly forgotten, rather a terrifying moment that came up in couples therapy decades later.”
ReplyDeleteWow, Yehoshua, whew, Kavanaugh is on SCOTUS and beyond your reach, ב"ה. Can we change the subject and go back to the K-G heter? What’s with the fake/phony PhD psychology letter that Rabbi Kamenstky and ORA use to support Tamar remaining with her lover? I quote:
“Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways, for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves. Thus the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants. But you must keep My laws and My rules, and you must not do any of those abhorrent things, neither the citizen nor the stranger who resides among you; for all those abhorrent things were done by the people who were in the land before you, and the land became defiled. So let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you. All who do any of those abhorrent things—such persons shall be cut off from their people. You shall keep My charge not to engage in any of the abhorrent practices that were carried on before you, and you shall not defile yourselves through them: I the Lord am your God.” (Leviticus 18:24-30).
Absolutely. That might be the likeliest possibility. And if that did happen, and Dr. Ford as a teenager had merely written that in her journal, or confronted the private school (NOT frat) boy when he was sober, or simply told a friend, it would have changed everything.
ReplyDeleteYes. Credible, but not convincing in the bigger picture. Just because one data point is credible does not make the gestalt of all the data points into a convincing whole.
ReplyDeleteShe really seemed to believe she was attacked by the then-nominee when he was a teenager. That gave her testimony a shred of credibility. Even the nominee said in his statement following her testimony that he thought she had had something happen to her -- he just denied being involved in that something.
I tend to think at this point that she made it up. But that's just where I'm holding. If I had to assign probabilities to possibilities, I'd say that her making it up is a low probability. It's my intuition that tells me it's made up, not my logic. But I also think she believes this made up event happened as she testified.
Agreed, that mistakes can do damage.
ReplyDeleteAnd agreed that it's a possibility that she revisited her reaction to the original event.
True. And as countless women from that time have said, they very often did not tell anyone when these things occurred.
ReplyDeleteLike, where are you going with this?
ReplyDeleteThey didn't tell anyone. Thus losing the ability to make anything out of the attacks. In general, that's how it works. If someone gets attacked and doesn't report it, every day that goes by makes it that much harder to convince anyone the attack occurred.
There could be lots of good reasons why attacks aren't reported. Doesn't change the reality that, in general, the longer it's unreported, the less it's believable.
And for a simple reason. The accused loses his or her ability to defend themselves when charges are old. Generally, if a defendant can prove they were somewhere else at the time of the attack then they've go a good defense.
In this case, Dr. Ford didn't even give a time of attack. Or a place of attack.